No. One intrinsic value is "the government has promised that if I pay them enough of this they won't steal my stuff".
It may not be a very nice intrinsic value, and you may not really trust that the government won't change their mind, but it's still an intrinsic value, and it's *the* intrinsic value that fiat currencies are based on.
It wasn't always true. But the more southern regions could support higher population densities during much of the history, and those make developing a culture easier.
OTOH, the Algonquin nations in the late 1600's were probably the highest civilization in the new world. Of course, partially this depends on what you consider "civilization" to mean. They didn't tend to live in dense population clusters. The Pueblo Indians did, however, before a climate change wiped them out. (Killed them? Forced them to move elsewhere? All I really know is they're gone.) But studies seem to show that crop failures were behind the fall of many civilizations, also including the Maya.
That *is* a problem, but if we're going to respect any religious beliefs, there isn't a legitimate reason to refuse to respect theirs. We don't need to agree with them, though. I don't agree with any religious beliefs I know of except my own (which are experimentally derived), and I'm *not* an atheist. More nearly a heretical Jungian, with a bias as to what religion means. But not believing doesn't mean I shouldn't respect them.
How about because "It's a lot of work to come up with good unique names."? Nobody ever accused the British settlers of Australia of being culturally sensitive, but they still gave animals names like kangaroo and wallaby.
When you say "line died out" you're using an inappropriate metaphor for the evidence. Because of meiosis in each immediate descendant a random half of the genes of each of the parents are not included. When a small population is absorbed by a larger population, this can easily, over the generations, result in all unique genes not passing through, even if they all have living descendants. (Which, admittedly, is quite unlikely...but isn't addressed by the evidence.)
But who would care if they did? There used to be lots of local ISPs, and it worked fine. Actually, better than it does with a few megaopolies. But the current group have worked hard to become universal only choices. They aren't going to give that up easily.
That may well depend. What if the laws are taxes on throttled traffic. If they challenge taxes in court the decision might not be what your are predicting. Governments are known to seize property for non-payment of taxes before the court case has been decided. Also check out eminent domain...I don't think that they want to go there, either of them.
This all depends on the precise wording of the laws...plural.
OTOH, the Supreme Court, IIRC, once decided that a farmer growing marijuana on his own land for personal use came under the interstate commerce clause.
Sorry, but you are talking about an idealized farmer. Most don't fit that pattern, and will willingly use excess fertilizer "just in case". And also use weed and insect killing sprays with excessive abandon. There aren't any good global guidelines, you need to analyze each case separately to get near optimum use, and it's not that easy, so...we'll just use a bit more, just in case.
Please note that one farmer doing this isn't a problem. But when thousands do, it becomes one.
P.S.: Also see the above comment about chicken farmers flushing chicken shit into Chesapeake Bay. Sometimes doing things the right way is just too much extra work. And "My doing it won't make any difference.", which is essentially true. One farmer doing it wouldn't be even a measurable problem.
Don't let the labels fool you, look at how the system works. The US is a complex oligarchy of the fascist sub-type. Russia was a failed attempt at a totalitarian state. I'm not quite sure quite what it is now, most probably a police state. China...well, I'm not sure yet. A decade or so ago it was still an Imperial state with the names changed, including worship of the emperor. These days... I'm not sure. It may be a successful totalitarian state, or maybe something quite different.
This gives me a lot of problems. Information has a particular meaning, which is, as you note, distinct from truth or falsehood. But it's also distinct from claims of fact versus opinion. A good measure of information is the degree of compressibility with a good compression algorithm, and I'm rather sure that isn't what they meant, since that would cover anything representable in a bit string, and they talk about multiple domains of knowledge.
I suspect that what they mean is "claims of fact", but I'm not certain.
It's not that simple, and there are degree of both belief and knowledge. But it's just as easy to falsely claim knowledge as it is to pontificate about a weak, or even absent, belief.
The thing is, belief is something that nobody can do without. But it tends to resist analysis. I will assert that without belief you can't walk across the room. You need to believe that space is metric, that the floor will support you, etc. But it gets a bad name because many people use the term when they encounter something they don't want to think about.
For example, I believe that the earth is locally flat, but tilted. An ant would have a different opinion. And an airplane wouldn't notice the local tilt, because of difference in scale. Those are knowledge. But direct experience is belief, and that's locally flat (except for imperfections in the sidewalk) but tilted (I live on a hillside).
But all terms in language tend to be used without regard to the fuzziness at the boundaries. So I have defined the core of belief in the previous paragraph, but those who have a direct experience of, say, a god, have a very different belief in that god than those whose belief is founded upon extensive repetition of, say, "Jesus loves me". (Note that the one kind of belief can be a component of the other...and usually is.)
Belief is also tied into motivation. If you don't believe something is possible, you won't try.
So please don't discount the value of belief. It's equal, or greater, in value than knowledge, and is probably evolutionarily prior. Just be aware that it's no guarantee of accuracy.
Reports say the info was sent to Intel, AMD, a few others (not all named) last June. So 6 months. Additional info was sent later, but the report didn't say what additional info, or when.
Based on other comments above, there is a fair chance you misunderstand the nature of the bug. It is reported that AMD validates requests for speculative execution before executing them, and Intel validates them afterwards. The bug is supposedly that it's possible to read the results of the speculative execution before the Intel chip notices that they were improperly executed. If that is so, then the AMD chips do *not* have this particular bug.
Slashdot Mirror
No. One intrinsic value is "the government has promised that if I pay them enough of this they won't steal my stuff".
It may not be a very nice intrinsic value, and you may not really trust that the government won't change their mind, but it's still an intrinsic value, and it's *the* intrinsic value that fiat currencies are based on.
It wasn't always true. But the more southern regions could support higher population densities during much of the history, and those make developing a culture easier.
OTOH, the Algonquin nations in the late 1600's were probably the highest civilization in the new world. Of course, partially this depends on what you consider "civilization" to mean. They didn't tend to live in dense population clusters. The Pueblo Indians did, however, before a climate change wiped them out. (Killed them? Forced them to move elsewhere? All I really know is they're gone.) But studies seem to show that crop failures were behind the fall of many civilizations, also including the Maya.
That *is* a problem, but if we're going to respect any religious beliefs, there isn't a legitimate reason to refuse to respect theirs. We don't need to agree with them, though. I don't agree with any religious beliefs I know of except my own (which are experimentally derived), and I'm *not* an atheist. More nearly a heretical Jungian, with a bias as to what religion means. But not believing doesn't mean I shouldn't respect them.
How about because "It's a lot of work to come up with good unique names."? Nobody ever accused the British settlers of Australia of being culturally sensitive, but they still gave animals names like kangaroo and wallaby.
When you say "line died out" you're using an inappropriate metaphor for the evidence. Because of meiosis in each immediate descendant a random half of the genes of each of the parents are not included. When a small population is absorbed by a larger population, this can easily, over the generations, result in all unique genes not passing through, even if they all have living descendants. (Which, admittedly, is quite unlikely...but isn't addressed by the evidence.)
But who would care if they did? There used to be lots of local ISPs, and it worked fine. Actually, better than it does with a few megaopolies. But the current group have worked hard to become universal only choices. They aren't going to give that up easily.
That may well depend. What if the laws are taxes on throttled traffic. If they challenge taxes in court the decision might not be what your are predicting. Governments are known to seize property for non-payment of taxes before the court case has been decided. Also check out eminent domain...I don't think that they want to go there, either of them.
This all depends on the precise wording of the laws...plural.
OTOH, the Supreme Court, IIRC, once decided that a farmer growing marijuana on his own land for personal use came under the interstate commerce clause.
Welllll....yes and no. All states will probably put in regulations of that type...but they'll all be different.
Not even family farmers. Often dealing with things optimally takes much too much work.
Do you believe your senses? Then you practice belief.
I think it's called anerobic decomposition...well, after stuff rotting faster than fresh water brings in more Oxygen.
That might work well if you can prevent it from generating methane. Probably possible, but not necessarily easy.
No. She's just writing under a pseudonym. Her real name is Pollyanna.
Sorry, but you are talking about an idealized farmer. Most don't fit that pattern, and will willingly use excess fertilizer "just in case". And also use weed and insect killing sprays with excessive abandon. There aren't any good global guidelines, you need to analyze each case separately to get near optimum use, and it's not that easy, so...we'll just use a bit more, just in case.
Please note that one farmer doing this isn't a problem. But when thousands do, it becomes one.
P.S.: Also see the above comment about chicken farmers flushing chicken shit into Chesapeake Bay. Sometimes doing things the right way is just too much extra work. And "My doing it won't make any difference.", which is essentially true. One farmer doing it wouldn't be even a measurable problem.
Governments *can* be transparent, they are just controlled by people who don't want to be transparent. No exceptions have been noticed by me.
I believe that's true of the Linux patch. Do you have any reason to believe it's true of the MSWind patch?
Neither.
Don't let the labels fool you, look at how the system works. The US is a complex oligarchy of the fascist sub-type. Russia was a failed attempt at a totalitarian state. I'm not quite sure quite what it is now, most probably a police state. China...well, I'm not sure yet. A decade or so ago it was still an Imperial state with the names changed, including worship of the emperor. These days ... I'm not sure. It may be a successful totalitarian state, or maybe something quite different.
This gives me a lot of problems. Information has a particular meaning, which is, as you note, distinct from truth or falsehood. But it's also distinct from claims of fact versus opinion. A good measure of information is the degree of compressibility with a good compression algorithm, and I'm rather sure that isn't what they meant, since that would cover anything representable in a bit string, and they talk about multiple domains of knowledge.
I suspect that what they mean is "claims of fact", but I'm not certain.
It's not that simple, and there are degree of both belief and knowledge. But it's just as easy to falsely claim knowledge as it is to pontificate about a weak, or even absent, belief.
The thing is, belief is something that nobody can do without. But it tends to resist analysis. I will assert that without belief you can't walk across the room. You need to believe that space is metric, that the floor will support you, etc. But it gets a bad name because many people use the term when they encounter something they don't want to think about.
For example, I believe that the earth is locally flat, but tilted. An ant would have a different opinion. And an airplane wouldn't notice the local tilt, because of difference in scale. Those are knowledge. But direct experience is belief, and that's locally flat (except for imperfections in the sidewalk) but tilted (I live on a hillside).
But all terms in language tend to be used without regard to the fuzziness at the boundaries. So I have defined the core of belief in the previous paragraph, but those who have a direct experience of, say, a god, have a very different belief in that god than those whose belief is founded upon extensive repetition of, say, "Jesus loves me". (Note that the one kind of belief can be a component of the other...and usually is.)
Belief is also tied into motivation. If you don't believe something is possible, you won't try.
So please don't discount the value of belief. It's equal, or greater, in value than knowledge, and is probably evolutionarily prior. Just be aware that it's no guarantee of accuracy.
Reports say the info was sent to Intel, AMD, a few others (not all named) last June. So 6 months. Additional info was sent later, but the report didn't say what additional info, or when.
Sorry, the article I read didn't say. It just said a specially crafted test workload.
Based on other comments above, there is a fair chance you misunderstand the nature of the bug. It is reported that AMD validates requests for speculative execution before executing them, and Intel validates them afterwards. The bug is supposedly that it's possible to read the results of the speculative execution before the Intel chip notices that they were improperly executed. If that is so, then the AMD chips do *not* have this particular bug.
It sounds like most program development should be unaffected. But I bet there are edge cases that aren't obvious.
To jump from "We've got this proven attack scenario" to "That's all the attack does" seems extremely unwise.